linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] arm64: dts: berlin4ct: add missing unit name to /soc node

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 6 Sep 2016 10:04:36 -0600
From:   Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, robh+dt@...nel.org
Cc:     Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...vell.com>, swarren@...dia.com,
        sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com, catalin.marinas@....com,
        will.deacon@....com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] arm64: dts: berlin4ct: add missing unit name to /soc
 node

On 09/06/2016 04:57 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 06:20:48PM +0800, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
>> Hi Mark,
>>
>> On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 11:22:08 +0100 Mark Rutland wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 04:55:55PM +0800, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
>>>> This patch fixes the following DTC warning with W=1:
>>>>
>>>> "Node /soc has a reg or ranges property, but no unit name"
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...vell.com>
>>>
>>> The node is only compatible with simple-bus, and so shouldn't have a
>>> reg.
>>
>> IIUC, the warning is caused by "ranges = <0 0 0xf7000000 0x1000000>;"
>
> Hmm.. I've rather confused by that warning. Per ePAPR and the
> devicetree.org spec, the unit-addresss is meant to match the reg
> property, and no mention is made of the ranges property. So I do not
> think that it is necessary to require this.
>
> That warning seems to have gone into DTC in commit c9d9121683b35281
> ("Warn on node name unit-address presence/absence mismatch").
>
> Rob, Stephen, was there some discussion that prompted ranges requiring
> a matching unit-address?

It looks like there was some in response to V2 of the patch which 
introduced this warning in dtc:

https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/9/19/301

I assume that's why Rob added that part to the patch when he reposted it.